INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND ERGONOMICS 2001, VOL. 7, NO.

1, 1534

Anthropometry for Design for the Elderly

Kamal Kothiyal Samuel Tettey School of Safety Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
This paper presents anthropometric data on elderly people in Australia. Data were collected in the metropolitan city of Sydney, NSW, Australia. In all 171 elderly people (males and females, aged 65 years and above) took part in the study. Mean values, standard deviations, medians, range, and coefficients of variation for the various body dimensions were estimated. Correlation coefficients were also calculated to determine the relationship between different body dimensions for the elderly population. The mean stature of elderly Australian males and females were compared with populations from other countries. The paper discusses design implications for elderly people and provides several examples of application of the anthropometric data. anthropometry elderly people ergonomics design ergonomics application

1. INTRODUCTION
Statistics from around the world show that the proportion of elderly people in the population has been steadily increasing over the last decades. For example, it is estimated that the elderly population (aged 65 years and above) in Australia will rise from the current level of 1.9 million (11.2%) to over 5 million (over 20%) in 2031, that is, there will be an increase of about 2.8% per decade (Economic Planning Advisory Council [EPAC], 1994). At the same time the numbers of those aged over 80 years are estimated to rise, at least three times (EPAC, 1994). Compared to this, the US population of the elderly will increase to about 20% by the year 2025 (Czaja, 1990). This trend in population change appears to be emerging in
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Kamal Kothiyal, School of Safety Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. E-mail: <k.kothiyal@unsw.edu.au>.

16

K. KOTHIYAL AND S. TETTEY

most economically developed countries. Tremendous improvements in medical technologies and health care delivery systems are believed to be the main reasons for this change in the elderly population. Diseases that were once thought to be fatal can now either be cured or at least life span can be increased by several years. People are living longer now than ever before. On the other hand, several socioeconomic changes are taking place. Whereas only a decade or so ago, people were expected to retire from active employment at a certain age (normally 60 or 65 years), now it is not the case. Economic rationalism is compelling governments of the day to apply strict control on social security or other benefits available to elderly people. As a result, elderly people are trying to make themselves economically useful in the community as long as possible so as to be able to maintain their living standard. Moreover, due to lifestyle changes such as physical exercises, fitness programs, healthy diet, and so forth, a significant number of elderly people is remaining physically fit to continue in employment. Technology and legislation are extending a helping hand in this regard. Most developed countries now have equal opportunity and anti-age, anti-disability discrimination laws, which prohibit discrimination in employment on any basis. Further, computer and communication technologies have significantly advanced in the last few decades and are now playing a prominent role in modern manufacturing and service industries in making jobs physically and cognitively less demanding (i.e., jobs require low physical strength or force, or are supplemented with decision-making aids, etc.) for workers. This has enabled elderly workers to work nearly as productively as young workers. Thus, it is not difficult to find elderly (aged 65 years and above) workers in modern workplaces working alongside young workers. In fact there has been a gradual change in the composition of the working population in workplaces in favour of elderly workers. There have also been other developments in the society. Young people, for example, are looking for entrepreneurial, business, management, and computer skills as they find these relatively more interesting, challenging, and important compared to traditional jobs. Thus a shortage of interested trained, skilled, or experienced people in many traditional workplaces such as public transport, banking, tourism, catering, medicine, police, armed forces, and so forth, is being felt. Due to difficulty in recruiting younger skilled workers with sufficient interest in traditional workplaces, elderly workers are being encouraged to remain in the workforce for as long as possible (Smith, 1990). Further, most countries in the economically developed world have seen a rise in the number of elderly people living in old peoples homes, nursing

ANTHROPOMETRY FOR DESIGN FOR THE ELDERLY

17

homes, and retirement villages. There is no doubt that living places for elderly people will have to be provided with specifically designed physical and living facilities to meet their needs. As elderly people are likely to form a significant proportion of the workforce in the future (whether by choice or circumstances), ergonomists cannot ignore the question of ergonomically designed workplaces, work stations, tools, and equipment for elderly people. Ergonomists will have to either introduce design modifications to existing workplaces, products, and so forth, or seriously consider new designs to suit elderly persons. Better still will be a new approach to design, that of universal design (Vanderheiden, 1997) suitable to almost whole population. Ergonomists will find it difficult to do so unless accurate and reliable data on anthropometry, physical and cognitive strengths, capabilities and limitations, and work performance of the elderly population can be collected and analysed. Whereas there has been considerable work on the effect of ageing on functional capacities such as hearing, vision, physical strength in general, motor and sensory system, and so forth, physical body dimensions, that is, anthropometry, have remained relatively untouched. Apart from a few body dimensions such as height and body weight, there is practically no comprehensive anthropometric information on other body dimensions. According to Kelly and Kroemer (1990) there is no nationwide reliable anthropometric information available in the USA, especially on the dynamic anthropometry of elderly people. Some data on the elderly (e.g., Borkan, Hults, & Glynn, 1983; Damon & Stoudt, 1963; Juergens, 1984; Pheasant, 1986) are available in the literature but are limited in their applicability due either to their small sample size, selective population, or lack of wider demographic coverage. Some of this data (e.g., Damon & Stoudt, 1963) are now outdated, thus it cannot be used with confidence for industrial or other applications. A further complication in using published data is lack of information on the health status of the participants. In the case of the elderly population this information is more important than in a young population because of age-related body changes. Chumlea, Roche, and Roger (1984) collected anthropometric data in a sample of healthy adults (23 men and 21 women) aged between 54 and 85 years of age. They pointed out the difficulty in obtaining reliable data as they observed more frequent and larger interobserver errors for most body measurements with the elderly compared to groups of younger individuals. In the UK, the Institute of Consumer Ergonomics (ICE, 1983) has collected some data for the elderly British population. An anthropometric data set for the elderly Dutch population has been developed by Molenbroek (1987).

18

K. KOTHIYAL AND S. TETTEY

Fozard (1981) and Stoudt (1981) have pointed out that elderly people are anthropometrically very different with interindividual variance increasing with age. Hence anthropometric data available for young adults cannot be used even with allowances for the age-related changes for the elderly population. Another complicating factor is the ethnic mix, which could be very different in the elderly population compared to the young adult population. In this study an attempt has been made to develop an anthropometric data set on the elderly population. At present there are no published data on the anthropometry of elderly people in Australia. This study was carried out in the geographical area of metropolitan Sydney, NSW, Australia. The main objective of the study was to collect data on a reasonable number of body dimensions, which can be useful for the design for the elderly. It is expected that this study will provide help to designers, who have been unable to design specifically suited products, equipment, and living facilities for the elderly population for lack of proper data.

2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Participants

Participants for the study were randomly selected from the general public, senior citizens clubs, old peoples homes (retirement villages), and activity centres for the elderly located in the metropolitan Sydney area in New South Wales, Australia. All participants were of normal physical health and were active in life at the time of the measurements conducted for the study. Participants who were unable to stand unassisted for the duration of measurements were excluded from the study. Participants were explained before the start of data collection that the objective of the study was to develop a data set of anthropometric body dimensions for the purpose of improving or redesigning the workplace, living facilities, and products used by the elderly. The procedure of measurements was explained in detail to them and they were encouraged to ask any question they may have about the procedures. Participants were asked to sign a consent form only when they had fully understood the purpose of the study and the procedures to be used for measurements. It took about 20 min or so to complete all the measurements set out in the study. Participants were allowed rest in between

ANTHROPOMETRY FOR DESIGN FOR THE ELDERLY

19

measurements, if needed. Measurements were made with participants wearing light clothing and with bare feet.

2.2. Measuring Instruments

The measuring equipment for the collection of data consisted of a standard professional anthropometer (TTM Martins Human Body Measuring Kit, Mentone Educational Centre, Carnegie, Vic., Australia), a weighing scale, and an adjustable chair. The measuring kit consisted of instruments for measurements of distances in straight lines, curves, circumferences, and thickness. The adjustable chair had a flat wooden seat with a high back rest. The seat and the backrest were aligned at right angles to each other and the seat acted as reference point for the measurements in the sitting position.

2.3. Selection of Body Dimensions

An adequate description of the human body may require over 300 measurements (Pheasant, 1986; Roebuck, Kroemer, & Thompson, 1975). The scope of this study was limited to measuring those body dimensions that were considered important and useful for the design of facilities and equipment used for daily living for the elderly and also for the design of the workplace environment (Steenbekkers & Beijsterveldt, 1998). In all 22 body dimensions were selected for measurements (Table 1, see Figures 1a, 1b, and 1c). The measurements were made according to the definitions of the selected body dimensions as given in Pheasant (1986). The selected body dimensions included most of the basic anthropometric measurements recommended by various sources (e.g., British Standards Institution, 1991; International Organization for Standardization [ISO], 1983; Molenbroek, 1987; Steenbekkers & Beijsterveldt, 1998). Each measurement was taken 3 times and the mean value was recorded in the data set. Measurements were made both in standing and sitting postures. To eliminate interobserver variations, all measurements were made by the same person for all the participants. The measurer was given training in the use of the anthropometric instruments in the laboratory. Before the data collection was started, several trial runs were conducted in the laboratory to make sure that the measurer fully understood all procedures of measurement and followed them consistently over the period of data collection. The measurements made by the measurer in the trial runs was checked by another person to determine the accuracy and consistency of the measurements.

20

K. KOTHIYAL AND S. TETTEY

TABLE 1. List of Body Dimension Selected for Measurement

Dimension Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Measure Age Weight Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness (thigh clearance) Buttock-knee length Buttock-popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth (bideltoid) Hip breadth Chest (bust) depth Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder grip length Hand length Hand breadth

Figure 1a. Definitions of the dimensions measured on the elderly population sample. Notes. 7sitting height, 8sitting eye height, 9sitting shoulder height, 10sitting elbow height, 13buttock-popliteal length, 19elbow-fingertip length.

ANTHROPOMETRY FOR DESIGN FOR THE ELDERLY

21

Figure 1b. Definitions of the dimensions measured on the elderly population sample. Notes. 3stature, 4eye height, 5shoulder height, 6elbow height, 9sitting shoulder height, 10sitting elbow height, 11thigh thickness (thigh clearance), 18chest (bust) depth, 20upper limb length, 21shoulder grip length.

Figure 1c. Definitions of the dimensions measured on the elderly population sample. Notes. 22hand length, 23hand breadth.

22

K. KOTHIYAL AND S. TETTEY

2.4. Data Analysis

Data were analysed using SPSS/PC+ (Noruis, 1990). The program was used first to check accuracy of entries by checking on outliers and then for the statistical analysis. One participant (out of 172) was dropped as there were more than two extreme body dimensions associated with the participant.

3. RESULTS
A total of 171 participants, 33 males and 138 females, participated in the study. In the study sample, most of the participants (over 70%) were born in Australia, with about 9% British, 7% Asian, and the rest from various other countries. This mix, incidentally, roughly represents the current overall population distribution in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 1997). Tables 2 and 3 present the descriptive statistics for male (n = 33) and female (n = 138) participants respectively. Tables show the mean (M), standard deviation (SD), median, range, and coefficient of variation (CV) of the measured body dimensions. Tables 4 and 5 present percentile values for the body dimensions of male and female participants.
TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics of Elderly Australian Male Aged 65 Years and Above (n = 33)
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Age (years) Weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttock-knee length Buttock popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Chest depth Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder-grip length Hand length Hand breadth

M
76 72 1658 1532 1385 1043 843 729 587 232 103 549 452 515 416 394 336 224 422 784 652 184 86

SD
7 11 79 70 70 50 56 46 37 35 23 38 38 31 25 30 28 36 30 74 90 10 7

Median 73 72 1650 1526 1378 1036 843 732 585 235 100 547 450 513 421 395 335 212 418 789 645 184 86

Range 6592 4699 14911824 13681684 11901547 9361189 723989 631805 502670 168297 65158 443610 357560 462580 372468 336463 290430 174347 365487 644987 600840 164200 7099

CV (%)
9.6 15.9 4.8 4.6 5.1 4.8 6.7 6.3 6.3 15.2 22.3 6.9 8.4 6.0 6.1 7.7 8.4 15.9 7.2 9.4 13.8 5.3 8.3

Notes. All linear dimensions are in mm; CVcoefficient of variation. Data presented in this table were published in Kothiyal and Tettey (2000).

ANTHROPOMETRY FOR DESIGN FOR THE ELDERLY

23

TABLE 3. Descriptive Statistics of Elderly Australian Females Aged 65 Years and Above (n = 138)
Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Age (years) Weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttock-knee length Buttock-popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Chest depth Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder-grip length Hand length Hand breadth

M
77 61 1521 1414 1271 952 784 676 531 212 95 530 440 475 379 356 338 235 385 737 646 170 79

SD
8 13 70 67 64 59 40 42 35 34 21 35 36 28 28 32 39 47 36 75 77 10 5

Median 77.5 59 1528 1416 1266 952 788 679 533 211 94 530 440 474 378 357 340 230 380 745 653 169 78

Range 6592 39105 13001740 12501565 11201474 8031132 677904 570782 456632 150286 60157 446620 352536 400570 310465 267450 255440 136384 322623 566940 466840 146195 7099

CV (%)
10.0 21.4 4.6 4.7 5.0 6.2 5.0 6.3 6.7 16.1 21.9 6.7 8.2 5.9 7.4 9.0 11.0 20.0 9.0 10.0 12.0 6.0 6.0

Notes. All linear dimensions are in mm; CVcoefficient of variation. Data presented in this table were published in Kothiyal and Tettey (2000).

TABLE 4. Percentile Values (P) of Anthropometric Measures of Elderly Australian Males Aged 65 Years and Above (n = 33)
Dimension 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttock-knee length Buttock-popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Chest depth Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder-grip length Hand length Hand breadth P5 52 1518 1406 1241 965 749 632 522 173 66 453 373 470 373 342 295 181 369 660 421 165 72 P25 65 1603 1486 1334 1015 802 693 561 210 91 531 432 486 392 367 317 198 398 738 647 178 81 P50 72 1650 1526 1378 1036 843 732 585 235 100 547 450 513 421 395 335 212 418 789 689 184 86 P75 78 1695 1573 1432 1066 882 766 608 259 118 581 467 539 437 415 354 245 443 835 746 191 92 P95 99 1816 1670 1514 1173 943 799 667 293 157 601 524 570 460 453 392 299 477 923 811 200 97

Notes. All linear dimensions are in mm. Data presented in this table were published in Kothiyal and Tettey (2000).

24

K. KOTHIYAL AND S. TETTEY

TABLE 5. Percentile Values (P) of Anthropometric Dimensions of Australian Females Aged 65 Years and Above (n = 138)
Dimension 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttock-knee length Buttock-popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Chest depth Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder-grip length Hand length Hand breadth P5 45 1412 1297 1171 855 720 600 471 154 68 475 376 432 330 307 277 170 337 614 520 153 71 P25 51 1470 1364 1228 916 756 646 502 182 78 504 416 452 362 333 307 195 362 679 584 163 76 P50 58 153 1415 1266 952 788 679 535 211 93 529 440 474 378 357 339 230 380 745 652 168 78 P75 70 1567 1462 1315 990 808 706 557 237 106 558 462 491 397 377 365 264 400 785 707 176 81 P95 85 1627 1520 1384 104 848 749 587 275 136 589 500 521 430 417 409 318 442 847 757 188 87

Notes. All linear dimensions are in mm. Data presented in this table were published in Kothiyal and Tettey (2000).

4. DISCUSSION
This study has attempted to collect and analyse anthropometric characteristics of the elderly population. The main objective was to fill in the gap in information on anthropometric measurements needed to design equipment and working and living facilities for elderly people in Australia. This study adds to a number of other studies (ICE, 1983; Molenbroek, 1987; Stoudt, 1981) on the anthropometry of elderly people done in the past in various countries. It is difficult to compare this study with others for a variety of reasons, such as, sample size, specific conditions of measurement, demographic coverage, ethnic mix, outdated data, health status of the participants, and so forth. However, the results of this study are similar to those of others as far as general trends are concerned. The participation of elderly male participants in the study was relatively small (n = 33) compared to female participants (n = 138). There was a low level of interest in the male population for the anthropometric data collection. Many male participants who initially showed interest in the study, declined to participate at the last minute. It is difficult to know the

ANTHROPOMETRY FOR DESIGN FOR THE ELDERLY

25

exact reason for lack of interest in male participants as participation in the study was voluntary and it was not possible to follow up on these cases. Contrary to this, there was considerable enthusiasm in female participants to participate in the study. The lower participation of elderly male participants appears to be common in most anthropometric studies. For example, the Dutch study (Molenbroek, 1987) had only 197 male participants out of a total of 815, that is, approximately 24%. The British study (ICE, 1983) had only about 33% male participants (215 out of a total of 649). Stature is one of the most important anthropometric characteristics affected by ageing. Table 6 compares male and female stature for different populations. Differences can be noticed in the stature of Australian males and females when compared with those of British population. On the other hand Australian males and Dutch males have nearly the same stature, but the data for females show considerable difference (about 20 mm). American males and females are taller than the rest of the populations. Data on British population are taken from ICE (1983), Dutch data from Molenbroek (1987), and American data from Stoudt (1981). It should be pointed out that the age composition of the samples is not exactly the same in all data sets. Table 6 shows the range, mean, and standard deviation of the age composition of the samples.
TABLE 6. Comparison of Age (in years) and Stature (in mm) of Different Elderly Populations
Age M SD (range) Population Australian British Dutch American Male 76 7 (65 92) 65 and above 80.4 7.8 (65 100) (65 74) Female 77 8 (65 92) 65 and above 81.5 8.3 (65 100) (65 74) Male 1658 1640 1656 1699 79 77 82 38 Stature M SD Female 1521 1515 1543 1562 70 70 72 43

Tables 4 and 5 describe the percentile values of various body measurements. The percentiles are generally needed for determining design values for a specific application. For example, in designing for reach, it is usually recommended to use a lower percentile (5th percentile) in order to accommodate as many people of the population as possible. A higher percentile value (usually 95th percentile) is considered when designing for clearance, for example, door height, leg room, and so forth.

26

K. KOTHIYAL AND S. TETTEY

4.1. Design Implications of Anthropometric Data and Applications

The anthropometric data collected in the study can be used for a variety of product and facility design applications such as office chairs and tables, bedroom and dinning room furniture, kitchen tops and storage space, placement of electric switches, door handles, windows, and so forth, which would help elderly people to work and move about easily and comfortably. Some examples of the application of the data are given in the next sections.

4.2. Office Chairs and Tables for Elderly Employees

In Introduction it was mentioned that due to socioeconomic reasons elderly people are being encouraged to remain in the workforce for as long as possible. Workplace modifications are therefore needed to accommodate them. It is more likely that elderly people, due to diminishing with age physical strength, will be involved in sedentary office type of work. Office chairs and tables are the very basic items that almost every elderly employee will use. Critical measurements for an office chair are seat height, width, and depth. In addition arm rest height is also important for assisting elderly people in standing up from the chair. Table 7 describes the ergonomic criteria applied and recommended values. In the case of elderly people, an additional criterion should be applied on seat height. This criterion relates to the need of elderly people to be able to stand up and sit
TABLE 7. Recommendation for Office Chairs and Tables for Elderly Workers
Dimension Seat height Criteria Applied Recommended Values (mm)

Seat depth Seat width Back-rest height above the seat Arm-rest height above the seat Table height (for writing from floor)

400 (This includes Popliteal height, 5th percentile female Make the seat a little higher to enable the 45 mm for shoe heel height) elderly user to stand up and sit down easily and unassisted Buttock-popliteal length, 5th percentile female 376 Hip breadth, 95 percentile female 409 Shoulder height, 95 percentile male 667 Sitting elbow height, 5th percentile female Sitting elbow height from floor, 5th percentile female plus 50 mm plus 45 mm for shoe heel height 154 652

ANTHROPOMETRY FOR DESIGN FOR THE ELDERLY

27

down from a chair unassisted. This can be achieved if the seat is made higher than recommended for young adult employees. As there are no published data on the preferred sitting height of the elderly, an arbitrary value of 2050 mm has been used in making recommendation as shown in Table 7. A foot rest must be attached to the chair so that the elderly person can place feet flat to keep knee joint angle at approximately 90o. A higher than usual seat would impact on the clearance between the thigh and the underside of the table required for the free movement of legs. Therefore table height for the elderly worker would need to be accordingly adjusted. The height of the work table depends on the nature of the activity. For example, observations on the general working population suggest that writing is better done at a table height a little higher than elbow height. Work involving a moderate amount of force requires the working height to be 50 to 100 mm below the elbow (Grandjean, 1988). There is lack of data on preferred working heights for the elderly population, however, observations on the young population can be considered as a guide. Table 7 shows some recommended values for office work tables and chairs for elderly people.

4.3. Placement of Storage Shelves

In general, the requirements of elderly users for clear visibility and easy reach should determine the placement of storage shelves in the home or at work. Also, elderly users have reduced muscular strength and joint mobility due to the ageing process. As far as possible most items should be stored between the knuckle and shoulder heights so that elderly users are not subjected to bending and overreaching demands. Table 8 shows some examples of storage options and their respective design values.
TABLE 8. Recommended Values for Some Storage Options at Work and Home Environment
Recommended Design Values (mm) 1350 (maximum)

Storage Option

Design Criteria

Storage above shoulder height Shoulder height from floor, standing, ac(for light, less frequently used cessible by 5th percentile female with items) a 20 (maximum) joint flexion Shelf height for items requiring Standing eye height from floor, 5th pervisual inspection by the user centile female Lower shelves (medium to heavy Standing knuckle height from floor, 95th weight items) percentile male

1330 630650

28

K. KOTHIYAL AND S. TETTEY

4.4. Public Transport Bus Seat Dimensions for Elderly Commuters

Mobility for elderly people is most essential not only to maintain an independent life style but also to develop and expand their social relationships and recreational activities. With ageing, peoples abilities to drive private cars and navigate through generally crowded roads decreases due to declining health. Moreover, the fear of an accident or getting injured refrains elderly persons from frequently using private cars. It is not therefore surprising that elderly people make extensive use of public transport, especially buses, to go to their workplaces and to visit activity centres (clubs), shopping centres, and friends and families. Current designs of buses make little consideration of the needs of elderly users. Important aspects of bus design that should be modified to accommodate elderly passengers include entry and exit doors, seat dimensions, space between seats, location of hand rails, and so forth. Table 9 shows the criteria that should be applied to seat design along with recommended values. According to Table 9, seat height should be about 330 mm plus shoe height. Considering 45 mm as a reasonable shoe heel height (Pheasant, 1986) bus seat height should not exceed 375 mm. Current Australian Design Rules (ADR, 1990) state that public transport bus seat height should not be less than 400 or more than 500 mm. Minimum seat depth recommended in ADR is 350 mm, which is less than the value recommended here. For the forward facing seats ADR recommends a seat clearance of 660 mm, which is comparatively less than the recommended value (701 mm) based on the anthropometric data collected in this study. This implies that there is need to modify current ADR to accommodate the elderly population on public buses.
TABLE 9. Recommended Values for Seats in Public Buses
Dimension Seat height Criteria Applied Recommended Values (mm) 330 + 45 = 375 376 601 + 100 = 701

Popliteal height, 5th percentile female plus shoe heel height Seat depth Buttock to popliteal length, 5th percentile female Clearance between seats Buttock to knee length, 95th percentile male plus 10 cm for clearance

TABLE 10. Correlation Coefficients Between Body Parts of Australians Aged 65 Years and Above
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dimension

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .9395** .8962** .8136** .8044** .7410** .7826** .4068** .3436** .5962** .4326** .7992** .6897** .5791** .2281* .0720 .5802** .4501** .3716** .6939** .5517** .9104** .8396** .8236** .8025** .8044** .4308** .3375** .6119** .4675** .7956** .6924** .5743** .2682** .0720 .5737** .4652** .3774** .7003** .5675** .8331** .7560** .7035** .8050** .4212** .2620* .5302** .4119** .7826** .6716** .4681** .2239* .0039 .5184** .4463** .3174** .7111** .5505** .7181** .6845** .7717** .4783** .2407** .4884** .3507**** .7205** .6011** .4341** .2155* .0351 .4591**** .3513** .2516** .6405** .5067** .9006** .8612** .6088** .3577** .4570** .3237** .5591 .4632** .5880** .2537** .1256 .5045** .4723** .4131** .5927 .4834 .8609** .6582** .3541** .4401* .3266** .4965** .3841** .5827** .2781** .1691 .4558** .4623** .4029** .5594** .4097**

Age (years) Weight (kg) Stature Eye height Shoulder height Elbow height Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Sitting elbow height Thigh thickness Buttock-knee length Buttock-popliteal length Knee height Popliteal height Shoulder breadth Hip breadth Chest depth Elbow-fingertip length Upper limb length Shoulder-grip length Hand length Hand breadth

.3210** .2310* .2789* .2555** .2474** .3364** .3582** .3309** .2806** .2341** .2497** .2422** .0561 .0027 .2758** .2549** .2694** .2272* .3230** .2433** .1263 .0878

.4588** .4602** .4327** .4442** .4275** .4450** .4686** .4161** .5588** .5721** .4152** .4253** .0540 .6980** .6626** .6016** .2483** .3243** .2143* .3985** .4845**

ANTHROPOMETRY FOR DESIGN FOR THE ELDERLY

.7322** .2446** .3981** .2838** .5811** .4659** .5522** .2496** .0544 .4049** .4190** .3182** .6194** .1944**

.2395** .2134 .1466 .2584** .12311 .4066** .3170** .1999* .2252* .2187* .1681 .3507** .2809**

29

30

TABLE 10. (continued )

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

11

12

13

14

K. KOTHIYAL AND S. TETTEY

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .2921** .0014 .1786* .4763** .3796** .3010** .5454** .3813** .5592** .5081** .4664** .4877** .4390** .4408** .4642** .5536** .2724** .3182** .5536** .2806** .3055** .2158* .2724** .2609** .0035 .1532 .4842** .3683** .5021** .4152** .7563** .4130** .3005** .2780** .1080

.5237** .3564** .6145** .0765 .5922** .5752** .5193** .3818** .3651** .3164** .2190* .2857**

.7317** .5397** .4208** .6010** .5655** .4352** .4438** .4386** .3238** .4599** .4483**

.4307** .3725** .3670** .4539** .3491** .2971 .4321 .3178** .3091** .2500**

.7361** .4715** .3100** .0375 .4516** .3490** .2651** .6439** .5181**

.5885**

Notes. One-tailed significance: *.01; **.001; 12 ... 23cf. Table 1.

ANTHROPOMETRY FOR DESIGN FOR THE ELDERLY

31

4.5. Correlation Coefficients Between Body Dimensions

Designers often use stature (body height) as an important reference value and try to relate it to other body dimensions to get approximate values for the purpose of designing items. This practice, however, is erroneous as stature may not be highly correlated with all other body dimensions. The relationship between different body parts can be determined by estimating Pearsons correlation coefficients (r values). Table 10 shows correlation coefficients for all body dimensions measured in the study. From Table 10 it becomes clear that age and weight are poorly correlated with all other dimensions. Stature, eye height, shoulder height, and elbow height, that is, measurements in the vertical direction, correlate highly with each other (r values .7). National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA, 1978) obtained high correlation coefficients for stature, eye height, shoulder height, and elbow height for young air force personnel. In the absence of comparable data, it is difficult to say whether the relationships between different body dimensions obtained in the study will be applicable for other populations, for example, the elderly population.

4.6. Differences Between Elderly and Young Adult Dimensions

Anthropometric data on the elderly were compared with the available published data on young adults to determine the differences between the two population groups. Tables 11 and 12 present a comparison of the data between the young Australian population (Bullock & Steinberg, 1975) and the elderly Australian population (this study). The participants for the adult Australian survey were drawn from a stratified sample of 75 male and 35 female pilots. The age of the male pilots ranged between 18 and 62 years, with a mean age of 34.6 years. The female pilots had a mean age of 32.2 years and their ages ranged between 17 and 46 years. The data presented in Tables 11 and 12 show that both elderly males and females are significantly heavier ( = .05) than the younger group, but elderly males and females were significantly shorter ( = .05) than the younger group. Annis, Case, Clauser, and Bradtmiller (1991) have reviewed data from a number of sources to estimate the changes in mean weight and stature with age. The differences seen in the Australian population are consistent with the observations of Annis et al. (1991).

32

K. KOTHIYAL AND S. TETTEY

TABLE 11. Comparison of Anthropometric Dimensions of Elderly Australian Females (This Study) With Young Australian Female Pilots (Bullock & Steinberg, 1975)
Young Australian Female n = 35 Dimension 1 2 7 8 9 12 14 15 18 Weight (kg) Stature Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Buttock-knee length Knee height Popliteal height Chest depth Elderly Australian Female n = 138

M
50 1657 867 757 596 583 522 401 185

SD
61 66 31 30 24 26 24 22 14

M
61 1521 784 676 531 530 475 379 235

SD
13 70 40 42 35 35 28 28 47

Notes. All linear dimensions are in mm.

TABLE 12. Comparisons of Anthropometric Dimensions of Elderly Australian Males (This Study) With Young Australian Male Pilots (Bullock & Steinberg, 1975)
Young Australian Male, n = 75 Dimension 1 2 7 8 9 12 14 15 18 Weight (kg) Stature Sitting height Sitting eye height Sitting shoulder height Buttock-knee length Knee height Popliteal height Chest depth Elderly Australian Male, n = 33

M
66 1771 916 799 609 614 565 441 223

SD
102 64 32 31 31 27 24 21 23

M
72 1658 843 729 587 549 515 416 224

SD
11 79 56 46 37 38 31 25 36

Notes. All linear measurements are in mm.

5. CONCLUSION
As the proportion of elderly people in the Australian population continues to increase, there are demands to keep them in the working force for as long as possible. This study was undertaken to provide anthropometric information on elderly Australians, aged 65 years and above, which could be used by designers for ergonomic design of the working and living environment.

ANTHROPOMETRY FOR DESIGN FOR THE ELDERLY

33

The study has provided mean, standard deviation, and percentile values for 22 anthropometric dimensions of 171 elderly Australians. The study has also provided correlation coefficients between various body parts, which could help in estimating other body dimensions. The results of the study are consistent with other studies related to the anthropometry of elderly people conducted in other countries.

REFERENCES
Annis, J.F., Case, H.W., Clauser, C.E., & Bradtmiller, B. (1991). Anthropometry of an ageing work force. Experimental Ageing Research, 17, 157176. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (1997). 1996 census of population and housing: Selected social and housing characteristics (No. 2015.0). Canberra, ACT, Australia: Author. Australian Design Rules (ADR). (1990). Requirements for omnibuses for hire and reward. (ADR 58/00). Canberra, ACT, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety. Borkan, G.A., Hults, D.E. & Glynn, R.J. (1983). Role of longitudinal change and secular trend in age differences in male body dimensions. Human Biology, 55, 629641. British Standards Institution. (1991). Guide to dimensions in designing for elderly people (Standard No. BS 4467:1991). London, UK: Author Bullock, M.I., & Steinberg, M.A. (1975, February). An anthropometric survey of Australian civilian male and female pilots. Control, 2943. Chumlea, W.C., Roche, A.F., & Roger, E. (1984). Replicability for anthropometry in the elderly. Human Factors, 56, 329337. Czaja, S.J. (1990). Human factors research needs for an aging population. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy. Damon, A., & Stoudt, H.W. (1963). The functional anthropometry of old men. Human Factors, 5, 485491. Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC). (1994). Australias ageing society (Background Paper No. 37). Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government Publication Service. Fozard, J.L. (1981). Person-environment relationships in adulthood: Implications for human factors engineering. Human Factors, 23, 727. Grandjean, E. (1988). Fitting the task to the man: A textbook of occupational ergonomics (4th ed.). London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Institute of Consumer Ergonomics (ICE). (1983). Seating for elderly and disabled people (Report No. 2: Anthropometric Survey). Loughborough, UK: Author. International Organization of Standardization (ISO). (1983). Basic list of anthropometric measurements (Standard No. ISO/DIS 7250:1983). Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Juergens, H.W. (1984). Anthropometric reference systems. In H. Smidtke (Ed.), Ergonomic data for equipment design (pp. 93100). New York, NY, USA: Plenum. Kelly, P.L., & Kroemer, K.H.E. (1990). Anthropometry of the elderly: Status and recommendations. Human Factors, 32, 571595.

34

K. KOTHIYAL AND S. TETTEY

Kothiyal, K., & Tettey, S. (2000). Anthropometric data of elderly people in Australia. Applied Ergonomics, 31, 329332. Molenbroek, J.F.M. (1987). Anthropometry of elderly people in the Netherlands: Research and applications. Applied Ergonomics, 18, 187199. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (1978). Anthropometric source book: A handbook of anthropometric data. (vols. 13, NASA Reference Publication 1024). Washington, DC, USA: Author. Noruis, M.J. (1990). SPSS/PC+ advanced statistics v. 6.1.2. Chicago, IL, USA: Satistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS). Pheasant, S.T. (1986). Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and design. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Roebuck, J., Kroemer, K., & Thompson, W. (1975). Engineering anthropometric methods. New York, NY, USA: Wiley. Smith, D.B.D. (1990). Human factors and aging: An overview of research needs and application opportunities. Human Factors, 32(5), 509526. Steenbekkers, L.P.A., & Beijsterveldt, C.E.M. (1998). Design-relevant characteristics of ageing users. Backgrounds and guidelines for product innovations. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University Press. Stoudt, H.W. (1981). The anthropometry of the elderly. Human Factors, 23, 2937. Vanderheiden, G.C. (1997). Design for people with functional limitations resulting from disability, aging or circumstance. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 20102052). New York, NY, USA: Wiley.